Pope Francis holds a candle as he presides over a solemn Easter vigil ceremony in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican, Saturday, March 31, 2018. (Credit: AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia.)

Amidst the silence and numbness of his disciples, both then and now, Pope Francis insisted on Saturday during an Easter Vigil Mass, Christ has risen, and this is the message that sustains hope, turning it into concrete gestures of charity.

“How greatly we need to let our frailty be anointed by this experience!” Francis said during the homily he delivered in what the Church’s collection of prayers for the Mass describes as the “mother of all vigils.”

“How greatly we need to let our faith be revived! How greatly we need our myopic horizons to be challenged and renewed by this message! Christ is risen, and with him he makes our hope and creativity rise, so that we can face our present problems in the knowledge that we are not alone,” the pope said to a packed St. Peter’s Basilica on a stormy Roman night.

[…]

To celebrate Easter, Francis said in his homily, “is to believe once more that God constantly breaks into our personal histories, challenging our ‘conventions,’ those fixed ways of thinking and acting that end up paralyzing us.”

“To celebrate Easter is to allow Jesus to triumph over the craven fear that so often assails us and tries to bury every kind of hope,” he continued.

Before the injustice that condemned Jesus, Francis said, his disciples were silent, numb and paralyzed, not knowing what to do “amid so many painful and disheartening situations.”

Later in his homily, he said that today too, those who follow Jesus often remain speechless in the “face of situations we cannot control, that make us feel and, even worse, believe that nothing can be done to reverse all the injustices that our brothers and sisters are experiencing in their flesh.”

Throughout his remarks, Francis often alternated between the third and the second person, drawing a parallel between those depicted in the Gospel as followers of Christ with those who today too follow- and hide, escape, keep silent- before the “calumnies and the false testimony that the Master endured.”

[…]

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana

A cross is seen atop a building on the campus of the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. (Wikimedia Commons/George Rypysc III)

Professor Tat-siong Benny Liew holds the Class of 1956 Chair of New Testament Studies in the Religious Studies Department of the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. His views have touched off a firestorm after a conservative campus newspaper published a story that surveyed some of his writings in which, among other things, Liew suggested Jesus might have been a "drag king" who harbored "queer desires." The controversy is sure to stir up a hornet's nest, and it should, because core values are at stake here.

Here are some excerpts from a chapter Liew wrote for a book he also edited in 2009:

If one follows the trajectory of the Wisdom/Word or Sophia/Jesus (con)figuration, what we have in John's Jesus is not only a "king of Israel" (1:49; 12:13-15) or "king of the Ioudaioi" (18:33, 39; 19:3, 14-15, 19-22), but also a drag king (6:15; 18:37; 19:12).

And this:

Women pollute since their moist and soft nature is also more susceptible to the assaults of wanton desires, erotic or otherwise. In short, women are wet and (thus) wild. I am suggesting that John's constant references to Jesus wanting water (4:7; 19:28), giving water (6:35), and leaking water (19:34) speak to Jesus' gender indeterminacy and hence his cross-dressing and other queer desires.

What to say? I am no Scripture scholar, but I know one when I see one. And I was lucky enough to have studied Romans with the late Jesuit Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, which was like studying organized crime with Al Capone. What Liew has penned is silliness on stilts, but not any kind of silly, a specifically modern and academic variety of silly. An academic, wishing to get noticed, wraps him or herself in a theory that seeks to titillate. The theory does not explain the subject matter; it overwhelms it. This is not really about the Gospel, is it? No: It is about Liew and his own academic fetishes.

Fast forwarding to the passion narratives, Conway observes that John's Jesus is a "quintessential man" because he "reveals no weakening to the passions that might undercut his manly deportment" (2003a, 175). If this is so, there is also something quintessentially queer here. During the passion, Jesus is not only beaten (18:22-3; 19:3) and flogged (19:1); his body is also nailed and his side pierced (19:18, 23a, 34, 37; 20:24-28). Oddly, John defines Jesus' masculinity with a body that is being opened to penetration. Even more oddly, Jesus' ability to face his "hour" is repeatedly associated with his acknowledging of and communing with his Father (12:27-28; 14:12, 28; 16:10, 17, 28; 17:1-25; 18:11), who is, as Jesus explicitly states, "with me" (16:32) throughout this process, which Jesus also describes as one of giving birth (16:21-22). What I am suggesting is that, when Jesus' body is being penetrated, his thoughts are on his Father. He is, in other words, imagining his passion experience as a (masochistic?) sexual relation with his own Father.

[…]

In an academic context, there is something worse than offensive or kooky: There is stupid. In a statement, the president of the school, Jesuit Fr. Philip Boroughs, mentioned Liew's writings were offensive, but I think we all can imagine times when an academic should be willing to offend as she searches for truth. Stupid is another matter. Boroughs also pointed out that Liew is a family man and a churchgoing one at that, but he wasn't hired on that basis, was he? He was hired as a scholar and so writing something stupid should matter and matter a lot.

This incident put me in mind of a discussion I once witnessed between two prominent theologians. (The event was held under the Chatham House Rule so I can't identify the theologians.) One argued that the only necessary guarantor of normativity within the theological community should be peer review. The other argued that there must be an ecclesial dimension to theological normativity. It will surprise no one that I concurred with the latter position.

[…]

How will the theological community react to this controversy? This is a question first and foremost for the community of scholars at the College of the Holy Cross. I hope they will recognize that episodes like this threaten academic freedom, which, like all freedoms, comes with responsibilities, at a bare minimum with the responsibility to be intellectually serious.

[…]

Indeed, at a time when so many small and medium-sized colleges are having difficulty keeping the doors open, and we know that the 2020 election will debate the degree to which college should be made more affordable, a small cadre of gender-obsessed pseudo-scholars can do enormous harm to the future of higher education. I fear, however, that the cultural zeitgeist will not encourage any sense of mutual responsibility for the academic guild and, indeed, those peddling gender ideology or queer theory will be only too happy to politicize their opinions, which is something fascists and communists did to the field of education, not something the education field should do to itself.

What should be done is this: Holy Cross should invite Liew to quit. If he does not, he should not be allowed in a classroom. Let those other professors who did not do due diligence on Liew's tenure application think of what they could do with the money the school is contractually obligated to pay him, especially when they have to cover his classes.

Let other college presidents and theology school deans come together as they came together to issue the Land O'Lakes statement, and say what people will whisper but no one yet wants to say out loud: This gender ideology nonsense is a fad. Let the educators state that Catholic education is going to take the lead in confining that fad to the rearview mirror. Theologians who dabble in this kind of analysis can apply elsewhere, but they are not wanted at a Catholic college or university.

[…]

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana

San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy, top left, speaks April 18 for the "Cardinal Bernardin Common Cause Lecture" at Loyola University Chicago. (NCR photo/Heidi Schlumpf)

Bishop McElroy blasts 'sickness of the soul' in US politics, calls for a moral solution

Chicago — The current polarization in the United States is the result of a "profound sickness of the soul," which is best addressed not politically but morally, through the cultivation of the virtues of a Catholic imagination, said San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy.

[…]

McElroy called the current polarization "heartbreaking," contrasting it to Pope Francis' "beautiful vision of politics" in his 2015 address to Congress. "Party" has become shorthand for worldview, he said, and party identity leads to a "cafeteria Catholicism" that too often does not foster the common good.

As evidence of the bitter partisan divide, he cited a survey that said 40 percent of Americans today would be upset if their child married someone from the other political party — compared to only 5 percent feeling that way in 1960.

Another example is how the church's pro-life positions on the unborn as well as the poor and refugees are placed in political opposition in which both sides present "skewed distillations of Catholic moral teaching," he said.

"Catholic teaching has been hijacked by those who break down the breadth of our social doctrine by reducing it to the warped partisan categories of our age and then selecting those teachings for acceptance which promote their partisan worldview," he said.

What is needed instead, he argued, is "evangelization of the heart and soul and spirit of Americans to help them grow in the fundamental virtues which can orient their choices toward the common good."

Amedeo Zafrati, working at the Rome Synagogue's historical archive, points to the name of Edgardo Mortara as he shows baptism certificates in Rome, Friday, April 20, 2018. (Credit: Gregorio Borgia/AP.)

ROME — It’s an incident that has caused controversy for 160 years: A 6-year-old Jewish boy taken from his family by papal police and brought to Rome to be raised Catholic after Church authorities learned his housekeeper had secretly had him baptized.

Now the case has reared its head again, with new evidence that memoirs the boy wrote as an adult were altered to take the edge off his anti-Semitic views and enhance details favorable to the Catholic Church.

The Associated Press has confirmed findings by Brown University historian David Kertzer that Edgardo Mortara’s memoirs were changed in ways big and small when they were translated from the original Spanish into Italian and published to great fanfare by Italy’s Mondadori house in 2005. AP found the Spanish text in a religious order’s archive this week.

The alterations do not significantly change the overall thrust of Mortara’s oft-stated gratitude to Pope Pius IX for having saved his soul by removing him from his Jewish family to raise him Catholic. But they do indicate that the tale — already subjected to over a century of revisions to suit various interests — has been recrafted again.

The changes, Kertzer told AP, “were clearly made with certain narrative purposes, to craft a narrative that was more in line with what the conservatives in the Church would like to present as what had happened in the story.”

[…]

Mortara’s great-great niece, Elena Mortara, said in an interview that the change was evidence of an effort to erase the anti-Jewish indoctrination her ancestor received from the Catholic teachers who raised and educated him.

[…]

Elena Mortara, who led a public protest by the family and Italy’s Jewish community when St. John Paul II beatified Pius in 2000, dismissed the value of even the Spanish version of the memoir as a document. She noted that it was written in the impersonal third person and typed up by someone else, and differs greatly in tone from Mortara’s hand-written journals, “where he shows all the conflicts within him, all the psychological conflicts, the drama of his soul.”

She vowed to once again mount a protest if the Vatican goes ahead with canonizing Pius and urged the current pope to consider changing Church law that still says that if an infant at risk of dying is baptized, the sacrament is valid even if it was done against the parents’ will.

[…]

This picture kept in the Archivio Storico San Pietro in Vincoli in Rome and taken on Tuesday, April 17, 2018 shows an undated photo of Father Pio Maria Mortara, third from left, with some of his brothers. (Credit: AP Photo.)

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana

“I thought, what could I bring the Holy Father this year that would represent Kentucky in a very powerful way?" Father Jim told Esquire. "We're known for our bourbon, and most people in this area have always said Pappy Van Winkle is the best.”

"What doesn't kill you, gives you a lot of unhealthy coping mechanisms and a really dark sense of humor."

Del, no this isn't my first Mass ever. I attended years ago, as my wife and her family are Catholic. And I attended prayers at Gethsemani. But this is the first Mass I have ever attended intentionally, "with my eyes open", and with the idea that I have started to attend "my Church". My son Reilly is 14. It was definitely a different experience for him, but he is adaptive and respectful, and I think he was pretty intrigued.

On Friday, April 27, I began my review of Maura Jane Farrelly's new book Anti-Catholicism in America, 1620-1860, focusing on the ways anti-Catholicism shaped the political culture of England and its colonies in the 17th and early 18th centuries.

What is, for me, the most important part of the book is Farrelly's examination of how the stated concern of Whigs on both sides of the Atlantic to preserve "civil and religious liberties" was not a dual concern, but a single one, that the Whiggish conception of democracy grew forth from and seemed to demand a Protestant population. By the time of the American Revolution, these Whiggish ideas would be the air the patriots breathed.

"Increasingly through the seventeenth century, especially during the decades that followed the English Civil War, English-speaking Protestants came to believe that governments that respected an understanding of freedom that began with individual rights were 'godly' governments, and all other governments were hopelessly corrupt," Farrelly writes. She locates this conception of a government based on individual rights in Calvinistic understandings of freedom and in the individualistic approach to divine truth that was the immediate consequence of the Protestant Reformation.

The antithesis of a governmental system based on individual rights at the time was one that enshrined the divine right of kings. The king with whom the island nation and its colonies were most frequently at war was France and France was not only Catholic but it harbored the Catholic pretenders to the British throne who had been exiled by the Glorious Revolution. The colonists received anti-Catholicism as a kind of birthright of citizenship. Farrelly writes: "Fears of Catholicism — or what the colonists called 'popery' — played an important role in tipping the scales in America toward independence… The argument that 'the British government - the King, Lords, and Commons have laid a regular plan to enslave America' was asserted 'over, and over, and over again,' asserted one Connecticut loyalist."

The Quebec Act of 1774, which granted legal recognition to the Catholic Church in the Canadian province, was the source of much of the patriots' concern. When the revolutionary literature frets about the danger of being enslaved, the concern is not that the colonists would wake up black and working on a plantation in the South. The worry was that the British government was tending toward "popery."

Farrelly details the complete hypocrisy of the American Continental Congress which wrote to Canadians urging them to join the rebellion because the English promises of religious toleration could not be trusted, while also writing a letter to the people of Great Britain that warned the religious toleration of Catholics was a threat to English liberties. A Montreal printer published both documents together and the fraud was exposed. The letter to the people of Great Britain remains one of the high points of American anti-Catholicism, referring to the ancient faith as one that had "deluged your island in blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder, and rebellion, through every part of the world." The principal author of that document was John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States and it was passed by the First Continental Congress in 1774.

[…]

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana

Del, no this isn't my first Mass ever. I attended years ago, as my wife and her family are Catholic. And I attended prayers at Gethsemani. But this is the first Mass I have ever attended intentionally, "with my eyes open", and with the idea that I have started to attend "my Church". My son Reilly is 14. It was definitely a different experience for him, but he is adaptive and respectful, and I think he was pretty intrigued.

Good on ya, mate!

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana

The Greek Orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem, Theophilos III, speaks in front of the closed doors of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem’s Old City. Photograph: Amir Cohen/Reuters

Church leaders claim priests are being verbally abused and spat at while property is being vandalised in ancient walled city

Christians in Jerusalem’s Old City say their presence at the geographical heart of their faith is under threat from intimidation and aggressive property acquisition by hardline Jewish settlers.

According to church leaders, priests are being verbally abused and spat at, and property vandalised.

[…]

The churches say they are facing onslaught on three fronts: a war of attrition waged by hardline settlers; unprecedented tax demands by Jerusalem city council; and a proposal to allow the expropriation of church land sold to private developers.

Theophilos III, the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem and the most senior Christian leader in the Holy Land, told the Guardian: “Today the church faces a most severe threat at the hands of certain settler groups. The settlers are persistent in their attempts to erode the presence of the Christian community in Jerusalem.

“These radical settler groups are highly organised. Over the last years we have witnessed the desecration and vandalism of an unprecedented number of churches and holy sites and receive growing numbers of reports from priests and local worshippers who have been assaulted and attacked.

“Where the authorities are concerned, this behaviour goes largely unchecked and unpunished.”

“These radical settler groups are highly organised. Over the last years we have witnessed the desecration and vandalism of an unprecedented number of churches and holy sites and receive growing numbers of reports from priests and local worshippers who have been assaulted and attacked.

“Where the authorities are concerned, this behaviour goes largely unchecked and unpunished.”

[…]

Theophilos has in the past few months travelled to the UK, the Vatican, the US and elsewhere to seek support for Christian institutions in the heart of the Holy Land. In the UK, he met Prince Charles, government ministers and Christian leaders, including the archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster and the Coptic archbishop of London.

The patriarch wants a commitment to the continuation of the status quo, an agreement which provides protection of, and access to, holy sites in Jerusalem and elsewhere, allowing Christians to live and worship in peace despite the conflicts and divisions in the area.

Pope Francis and other Christian leaders have called for the status quo to be respected.

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana

We may never know the real reason Speaker of the House Paul Ryan sacked House chaplain Jesuit Fr. Patrick Conroy. At The Washington Post, Sarah Pulliam Bailey sketched the full context of the story. And, at RNS, Mark Silk noted the silence on the Catholic right, and examined some of the theories for why Ryan fired the padre.

No one should be surprised that Ryan is something of a fraud. As Silk points out, no matter how you cut it, Ryan's decision to sack Conroy was built on the speaker's refusal to accept Catholic social doctrine. Of the two leading theories, I think the most compelling remains that Ryan was irked by this prayer Conroy offered during last year's debate over tax reform:

May all members be mindful that the institutions and structures of our great nation guarantee the opportunities that have allowed some to achieve great success, while others continue to struggle. May their efforts these days guarantee that there are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans.

Ryan apparently told Conroy to "stay out of politics" after the prayer. If Ryan does not grasp that issues of taxation and budget priorities entail religious and moral questions, as well as political ones, and that his Catholic faith makes specific doctrinal claims about such matters, he grasps nothing.

The alternate theory is that members complained Conroy could not relate to them, specifically because he did not have kids.

That is to say, Ryan caved to the old anti-Catholic canard that a celibate cleric cannot really understand people because of his life situation. Ryan should ask one of his buddies in the hierarchy what they think of that rationale.

[…]

Ironically, just a couple of weeks before the firing of Conroy, Ryan went to Fort Worth, Texas, to visit Catholic Charities there, and to speak about ending poverty. Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth tweeted about the visit:

What's next? Will Olson be tweeting an invite to come hear Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi on the need to end abortion? I have never given the former speaker a pass for her position on abortion and I won't give the current speaker a pass, because everything he says about poverty is either delusional or a lie. And, in this instance, where the connection between poverty and abortion is so obvious, I flunk Ryan on the pro-life cause as well.

[…]

EDIT: Fixed formatting errors

Last edited by wosbald on Wed May 02, 2018 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana

Jesuit Father Patrick J. Conroy, pictured in a May 8 photo, has been the chaplain of the U.S. House of Representatives since 2011. He said he always knew he wanted to work in Congress but never imagined he would do so as a priest. (Credit: CNS photo/Rhina Guidos.)

NEW YORK — In the latest twist in an unfolding drama over the forced departure of the chaplain to the House of Representatives, Father Patrick Conroy, who resigned in March following pressure from House Speaker Paul Ryan, has now rescinded his resignation.

In a two-page letter sent to Ryan on Thursday, Conroy said “I have never been disciplined, nor reprimanded, nor have I ever heard a complaint about my ministry during my time as House chaplain.”

Both Conroy and Ryan are Catholics.

“It is my desire to serve as House Chaplain in this 115th United States Congress to the end of my current two-year term, and beyond, unless my services are officially terminated (however that is properly done) or I am not re-elected to the position by membership of the House,” wrote Conroy.

In the letter, which was obtained by Crux, Conroy claims that his resignation was requested by Ryan’s Chief of Staff, Jonathan Burks. When Conroy requested reasoning, he said Burks said, “Maybe it’s time we had a Chaplain that wasn’t Catholic.”

According to Conroy, Burks also cited a prayer before Congress in November prior to debate on tax reform legislation as a reason for Ryan’s request.

Conroy’s decision to rescind his resignation comes one day after Republican Congressman Walter Jones, a Catholic, sent Ryan a strongly worded letter questioning his decision and demanding that he reinstate the chaplain for the remaining eight months of his term.

[…]

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana

Jesuit Fr. Patrick J. Conroy, in a photo taken May 8, 2017, had been the chaplain of the U.S. House of Representatives since 2011. (CNS photo/Rhina Guidos)

In a story with multiple updates late Thursday afternoon, Jesuit Fr. Pat Conroy rescinded his resignation as chaplain to the U.S. House of Representatives, House Speaker Paul Ryan changed his mind and decided to keep him in the position, and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley of New York called for an inquiry into the initial dismissal.

In response, Catholic leaders are praising what seems to be a resolution after a week of controversy and conflicting reports of why the priest was asked to resign in the first place.

“I am pleased that Father Conroy will remain as House Chaplain,” Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) told NCR in an emailed statement, adding that Conroy’s service “has been a blessing” to House members.

“We must work to keep the Chaplain’s office out of the political fray,” she added.

Sánchez is one of more than 140 Catholics in the House, many of whom signed a letter asking for more information after it became public that Conroy’s resignation was not voluntary.

So did Rep. Rosa DeLauro of New York, another Catholic and Democrat, who also praised Ryan’s dramatic reversal late Thursday. Ryan had continued to defend the priest’s dismissal throughout the past week.

“Speaker Ryan did the right thing by refraining from further politicization of the Office of House Chaplain and reversing his decision to terminate Father Conroy,” DeLauro tweeted.

Conroy “has carried out his duties with dignity and commitment, and has never wavered in his strong pastoral presence on behalf of the entire House of Representatives,” she said in the tweet.

Thursday’s story began with the release of Conroy’s letter to Ryan, in which the priest rescinded his resignation, saying he believed the speaker had no cause to oust him.

[…]

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana

As nearly as I can tell, some folks close to Speaker Ryan figured that it would be timely PR to retire the Catholic chaplain who has been there for many years and replace him with an Evangelical pastor of some sort.

A political move? -- Of course. This is Congress, after all.
A big deal? -- not likely, by any stretch.

But there are always trouble-makers, looking to make a big deal out of nothing.

Since this got all blown out of proportion, Speaker Ryan reversed the decision. That should make everyone happy again, right? <emoji eye-roll>
=================================

Leftie blogger Jeff Simpson contends that House Speaker Paul Ryan, who recently fired the House chaplain, is actually a big backer of the Madison Diocese's conservative bishop, Robert Morlino. The House chaplain, a Jesuit priest, was too much in the mold of Pope Francis, whose policies are quite ...

(Madison's newspapers are hilariously convinced that Pope Francis shares their hatred for both Republicans and our bishop.)

"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

As nearly as I can tell, some folks close to Speaker Ryan figured that it would be timely PR to retire the Catholic chaplain who has been there for many years and replace him with an Evangelical pastor of some sort.

A political move? -- Of course. This is Congress, after all.
A big deal? -- not likely, by any stretch.

But there are always trouble-makers, looking to make a big deal out of nothing.

Since this got all blown out of proportion, Speaker Ryan reversed the decision. That should make everyone happy again, right? <emoji eye-roll>
=================================

Leftie blogger Jeff Simpson contends that House Speaker Paul Ryan, who recently fired the House chaplain, is actually a big backer of the Madison Diocese's conservative bishop, Robert Morlino. The House chaplain, a Jesuit priest, was too much in the mold of Pope Francis, whose policies are quite ...

(Madison's newspapers are hilariously convinced that Pope Francis shares their hatred for both Republicans and our bishop.)

"For this reason, on June 1, 1951 … we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land."— Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana